Meghalaya High Court
Mr Sdangyoo L. Dkhar vs State Of Meghalaya And Others on 3 May, 2016
Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 MEGHALAYA 4, (2016) 163 ALLINDCAS 640 (MEG)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT
SHILLONG
: ORDER :
WRIT PETITION (C) No.18 of 2016 Mr. Sdangyoo L. Dkhar :::: Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Meghalaya and others :::: Respondents
Date of Order: :: 3rd May 2016
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. HS Thangkhiew, Sr.Adv, with Mr. P Nongbri, for the petitioner Mr. ND Chullai, Sr.GA, with Mr. H Abraham, for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr. B Bhattacharjee, for the respondent No.6 BY THE COURT:
The petitioner, while asserting that he is appointed as an "Agent"
by the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council ('the KHADC' or 'the Council' hereafter) for setting up and operating the so called "KHADC's Mineral Transport Challan Check Point/Royalty Check", has filed this writ petition on the grievance that the officers of the Government of Meghalaya were illegally interfering with the Check Points managed by him; and has sought the reliefs in the following terms:-
"In the premises, it is prayed that your Lordship would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the writ of mandamus should not be issued to hold that the arbitrary interference by the State respondent particularly the Deputy Commissioner, West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin, Meghalaya and respondent Director of Mineral Resources 2 into the running of the Check points managed by the writ petitioner for verifying the mineral transport challan/royalty challan from the coal laden vehicle originating in the territory of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council as illegal and unconstitutional and as to why the writ of certiorari should not be issued to direct the respondent Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong, respondent Director of Mineral Resources and respondent Deputy Commissioner, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin, Meghalaya not to interfere with the running and management of Mineral Transport Challan/Royalty Challan checkpoint at the designated points namely (i) Nongktieh (Manai) exiting to NH 40, (ii) Athiabari exiting to Assam and (iii) Nongsharam exiting to Garo Hills an onward to Assam as well as the designated point at South West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya to verify/checking the mineral transport challan/royalty challan from the mineral/coal laden vehicles/trucks carrying extracted coal originating from the territory of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council and pass any other order/orders as your Lordship deem fit and proper under the circumstance of the case."
The petitioner has referred to paragraph 9 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, governing the grant of licenses and leases for the purpose of prospecting for, or extracting of, minerals; and has submitted that thereunder, the Government of State and the District Council of the area in question are sharing the royalty on the minerals extracted and removed. The petitioner has pointed out that such sharing of royalty between the Government and the KHADC had earlier been in the ratio of 60:40 and at present is in the ratio of 75:25 from the royalty collected within the jurisdiction of the KHADC. According to the petitioner, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) pointed out in the report dated 31.03.2013 that the State Government had failed to set up a mechanism to determine the mineral extracted and as a result, as between the years 2008-09 to 2012-13, there were huge losses, including short realization of revenue to the tune of Rs.81.40 crores, due to the failure of the Director of Mineral Resources to periodically assess the performance of the check gates that led to 3 leakage of revenue at many check points and weighbridges. The petitioner has also pointed out that the CAG had recommended to the State Government for improvement and overall restructuring of the management of the check gates.
The petitioner has further averred that in view of massive leakage of royalty/revenue coupled with illegal transportation of extracted coal without payment of royalty as well as diversion of royalty to the Jaintia Hills District and Garo Hills District by the vehicles carrying the extracted coal from its jurisdiction, the KHADC, being one of the key beneficiary of the collection of royalty under paragraph 9 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, issued a Public Notice dated 10.12.2015, inviting the interested persons for being appointed as its "Agents" for setting up and operating the royalty challan checkpoints named as: "KHADC's Mineral Transport Challan Checkpoint/Royalty Check" at the designate points and marching road at national highway along with the Council's border for a period of three years, so as to verify the authenticity of the mineral transport challan/royalty challan carried by the coal laden trucks.
The case of the petitioner is that he applied under the notification aforesaid and, having been found suitable, was appointed as KHADC's Agent for checking of mineral transport challan/royalty challan from all minerals laden vehicle originating from Council's territory for a period of three years by the order dated 15.01.2016, as issued by the Secretary to the Executive Committee of the KHADC; and a public notice was also issued by the said Secretary for information of all the concerned. The petitioner has also averred that pursuant to the order appointing 4 him as Agent, he deposited the security amount of Rs. One lakh and constructed the royalty challan checking point office at (1) Nongkteih (Manai) exiting to NH 40; (2) Athiabari exiting to Assam; and (3) Nongsharam exiting to Garo Hills and onward to Assam and other places while maintaining the distance of about 50 metres from the main road and highway.
The petitioner has stated the grievance that despite himself having been appointed and having set up the check points, the Deputy Commissioner, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin had been interfering with his work and looking to such intereference, he sincerely requested the respondent Chief Secretary to intervene and to instruct the Deputy Commissioner concerned not to interfere with the functioning of the royalty challan check points. The petitioner has further submitted that due to repeated interference, he again submitted the representation dated 29.01.2016 to the respondent Chief Secretary highlighting, inter alia, that within two days of verifying and checking, he had been able to detect that more than 200 coal laden trucks carrying extracted coals from the territorial jurisdiction of KHADC were moving out every day to other part of the State without carrying any royalty challan and, as a result, there was revenue leakage of Crores of rupees everyday in the State.
The petitioner has also averred that he was not collecting the royalty but merely verifying the royalty challans from the coal laden trucks within the territory of the KHADC and when the royalty challan is found correct/genuine, he would simply put counter stamp/seal of the KHADC showing that the coal laden truck concerned has duly paid the 5 royalty to the respondent State. According to the petitioner, this verification of the royalty challan from the coal laden trucks at the designated point is sine qua non for KHADC to prevent leakage of revenue.
The petitioner has further stated that till date, there was no speaking order issued by the respondents Deputy Commissioner, West Khasi Hills District and Director of Mineral Resources to stop the functioning of above royalty challan check points and no show cause had been issued to him by the respondents and hence, the impugned action of the respondents in interfering with the verification of royalty challans at the designated checkpoints managed by him was an example of violation of the basic principles of natural justice.
The petitioner has contended that repeated interference in his work by the Deputy Commissioner, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin and by the staff of the Director of Mineral Resources at the South West Khasi Hills District has become a safe haven for thousands of trucks carrying extracted coal from the territory of the KHADC without royalty payment; and as a result, royalty worth crores of rupees is leaked out of the exchequer. It is contended that arbitrary interference by the respondents with the duly appointed Agent like the petitioner from verifying the correctness of the royalty challans of the coal laden trucks to prevent leakage of revenue/royalty is ex facie unconstitutional and the same has seriously affected the fundamental rights of the petitioner.
The contesting respondents have filed the affidavit-in-opposition, essentially contending against the very authority of the KHADC to 6 appoint and install any such Agent like the writ petitioner. According to the respondents, the order issued by the Secretary to the Executive Committee of the KHADC dated 15.01.2016, appointing the petitioner as the Council's Agent for checking of mineral transport challan/royalty challan from all mineral laden vehicle originating from Council's territory and allowing him to collect a verification fees of Rupees 100/- (one hundred) from Single Axel Laden vehicle and Rupees 200/- (two hundred) from Double Axel Laden vehicle was confiscatory in nature; was without any legal authority; and was not sanctioned by the provision of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India.
The contesting respondents have contended that a District Council constituted under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India has no plenary power and cannot impose any fee, tax or toll, or authorize such collection through its agents unless such power is expressly conferred by or under the Constitution. According to these respondents, no such power having been given to the KHADC, any collection of fee by its agent was in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution. The respondents have also stated that no barrier in the nature of check point could be erected or constructed by any individual/entity without permission from the Ministry of Road Transport and setting up of the check points by the petitioner on the Highway was also violative of the National Highway Rules, 1997.
Learned counsel for the petitioner though has attempted to argue that working of the petitioner as Agent of KHADC was unnecessarily sought to be interfered with and that there had been failure on the part of the Government authorities to check and prevent the loss of 7 revenue; and has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on construction of pleadings, but the fundamental question acquiring attention in this matter has been as to whether the KHADC has any right and authority to appoint any Agent like the petitioner so as to setup any check post for checking of mineral transport challan/royalty challan and to collect the so called verification fees? In regard to this basic and core question, learned counsel for the parties were heard at length.
Learned counsel appearing for the KHADC referred to paragraphs 3 and 9 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, to the Assam (and Meghalaya) Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951 and also to the decisions in T. Cajee -versus- U Jormanik Syiem and another: AIR 1961 SC 276; Edwingson Bareh -versus- The State of Assam and others: AIR 1966 SC 1220 and Ewanlanki E. Rymbai and others -versus- Jaintia Hills District Council and others: 2003 (3) GLT 66.
With reference to the above and on the fact situation of the present case, the learned counsel for KHADC strenuously contended that the KHADC, being the Autonomous District Council, is clearly entitled to the share of royalties occurring from the licenses and leases granted by the Government of the State for the purpose of prospecting for, or extracting of, mineral in respect of an area falling in its jurisdiction; and in case of any dispute as regards share of the Council, the matter is required to be referred to the Governor for determination; and the amount determined by the Governor is deemed to be the amount payable to the District Council. The learned counsel contended 8 that the KHADC being entitled to the share of royalty in relation to the mineral extracted from its area and being aware of the position of leakage of royalty, has to take all measures, at least to collect the royalty data so as to specify it claims when being deprived of the due amount of royalty share. According to the learned counsel, if the KHADC does not depute its Agent to collect necessary data, it would not be in the position to effectively raise the dispute envisaged by sub- clause (2) of Paragraph 9 of the Sixth Schedule and hence, appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be unjustified. Learned counsel submitted that so long as the KHADC did not interfere with the law framed by the State Government or the Central Government, the direction issued by it cannot be questioned. The learned counsel for the petitioner also made the submissions in the same lines and contended that the petitioner has rightfully been appointed as an Agent by the KHADC.
The learned GA opposed the submission while contending that so far the royalty on mineral is concerned, even if the District Council like KHADC has a right to share, it has no right to appoint any Agent for the purpose of verification of challan nor could subject the transporters or challan holders to any payment towards alleged verification fees.
Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record with reference to the law applicable, this Court is clearly of the view that the appointment of the petitioner as an Agent so as to setup challan/royalty check points and to recover verification fees by the respondent-KHADC is not supported by law; 9 and hence, the claim made by the petitioner cannot be said to be making out a case for infringement of any legal right.
Learned counsel for the petitioner (the Agent) as also for the KHADC (the Principal) could not dispute the fundamental position that even when the District Council is invested with several of legislative and executive powers, the subjects enumerated in Paragraph 3 of the Schedule Sixth do not include any item of 'imposition and collection of royalty on mineral'; and even the power of the District Council to assess and collect land revenue and to impose taxes per Paragraph 8 of the Sixth Schedule does not invest it with the power to impose and collect royalties. The matter relating to royalties under licenses/leases for dealing in mineral is distinctly provided in Paragraph 9 of the Sixth Schedule that reads as under:-
"9. Licenses or leases for the purpose of prospecting for, or extraction of, minerals.- (1) Such share of the royalties occurring each year from licenses or leases for the purpose of prospecting for, or extraction of, minerals granted by (the Government of the State) in respect of any area within an autonomous district as may be agreed upon between (the Government of the State) and District Council of such district shall be made over to that District Council.
(2) If any dispute arises as to the share of such royalties to be made over to a District Council, it shall be referred to the Governor for determination and the amount determined by the Governor in his discretion shall be deemed to be the amount payable under sub-
paragraph (1) of this paragraph to the District Council and the decision of the Governor shall be final".
Being cautious of the limitation that the District Council may not impose or collect royalty nor can impose any fee in the name of checking of vehicles carrying mineral, the learned counsel for the KHADC has emphasized on the Council's right to the share of royalty and has strenuously argued that for the purpose of effectively raising 10 the claims/dispute by KHADC, collection of data was necessary and hence, the Agent like the petitioner was required to be appointed. However, the substratum of this argument is knocked to the ground on a bare look at the purpose for which the petitioner has been engaged by the KHADC and the notice as issued to the public by it. The order dated 15.01.2016, as issued by the Executive Committee of KHADC appointing the petitioner as Council's Agent, reads as under:-
"OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE KHASI HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL SHILLONG.
No.DC.RBF/XXII(T)/408-3/2015 Dated Shillong, the 15th January, 2016 To, Mr. Sdangyoo L. Dkhar, Upper Nongrim Hills, Shillong.
Sub: Appointment as Council's Agent.
You are hereby informed that the Council is pleased to appoint you as the Council's Agent for Checking of Mineral Transport Challan/Royalty Challan from all mineral laden vehicles originating from Council's territory.
You are allowed to collect a Verification fee of Rs.100.00 (Rupees One hundred) Only from every Single Axle Mineral Laden Vehicle and Rs.200.00 (Rupees Two hundred) Only from every Double Axle Mineral Laden vehicle.
Sd/-
Secretary to the Executive Committee Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council Shillong."
Interestingly, in its public notice of the even date, the Secretary to the Executive Committee of KHADC has even proceeded to issue directions to all mineral laden trucks originating from the Council's territory to produce their transport challan/royalty challan at the Council's designated checkpoints and has gone to the extent of issuing 11 warning that the movement of vehicles may be prohibited. The contents of the public notice dated 15.01.2016 could be usefully taken note of as under:-
"PUBLIC NOTICE 15TH JANUARY, 2016 IT HAS COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE COUNCIL THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL MINERAL LADEN TRUCKS ORIGINATING FROM COUNCIL'S TERRITORY/REGION WHICH ARE EITHER UTILIZING MINERAL TRANSPORT CHALLAN (MTC)/ (ROYALTY CHALLAN) ISSUED FOR OTHER AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCILS' REGION OTHER THAN EAST KHASI HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL OR PLYING ILLEGALLY WITHOUT ROYALTY CHALLAN. THIS HAS NOT ONLY AFFECTED THE COUNCIL'S EXCHEQUER BUT ALSO CRIPPLED ITS VARIOUS ACTIVITIES.
IN THIS REGARD, THE COUNCIL HAS THEREFORE, DECIDED TO SET UP MINERAL TRANSPORT CHALLAN (MTC)/ ROYALTY CHECKPOINTS AT VARIOUS DESIGNATED PLACES TO CHECK MINERAL LADEN TRUCKS ORIGINATING FROM THE COUNCIL'S TERRITORY.
IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED THAT ALL MINERAL LADEN TRUCKS ORIGINATING FROM THE COUNCIL'S TERRITORY ARE TO PRODUCE THEIR PAID MINERAL TRANSPORT CHALLAN/ ROYALTY CHALLAN AT THE COUNCIL'S DESIGNATED CHECKPOINTS BEFORE LEAVING THE COUNCIL'S TERRITORY.
HENCEFORTH, NO MINERAL LADEN VEHICLE WILL BE ALLOWED TO LEAVE COUNCIL'S TERRITORY WITHOUT PRODUCING A PAID MTC/ ROYALTY CHALLAN ISSUED FOR THE KHADC REGION.
THIS SHALL COME INTO FORCE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT.
SECRETARY, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE KHASI HILLS, AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL, SHILLONG."
A reference to the aforesaid appointment letter and the public notice, both dated 15.01.2016, leave nothing to doubt that it had not been a matter of appointing somebody merely for collection of data; but the appointment of the petitioner has precisely been for the purpose of 12 checking the trucks and then to collect verification fees too. It is difficult to find from the powers conferred by the Schedule Sixth to the Constitution of India that even in respect of transportation of mineral, the KHADC could appoint any such Agent and recover such nature fees. The suggestion that the entire exercise has only been for collection of data does not inspire confidence and cannot be accepted.
This Court would hasten to observe that any dispute on the share of royalties could always be referred to the Hon'ble Governor for determination as envisaged in sub-clause (2) of Paragraph 9 of the Sixth Schedule and appropriate claims in accordance with law could always be made by the KHADC but, a right to claim share of royalty cannot be extended to the extent of interfering with the movement of vehicles for the alleged purpose of checking and imposing fees for the purpose of such checking by the KHADC. The purpose for which the petitioner has been appointed does not appear having any sanction of law and hence, the Deputy Commissioner cannot be said to have acted illegally in raising the objection against the setting up of checkpoints by the petitioner.
On the decisions as referred by the learned counsel for the KHADC, appropriate does it appears to refer to the following passage from the decision in T. Cajee case (Supra):-
"10. ..... With respect, it seems to us that the High Court has read far more into paragraph 3 (1) (g) than is justified by its language. Paragraph 3 (1) is in fact something like a legislative list and enumerates the subjects on which the District Council is competent to make laws. Under para. 3 (1) (g) it has power to make laws with respect to the appointment or succession of Chiefs or Headmen and this would naturally include the power to remove them. But it does not follow from this that the appointment or removal of a Chief is a legislative act or that no appointment or removal can be made without 13 there being first a law to that effect. The High Court also seems to have thought that as there was no provision in the Sixth Schedule in terms of Arts. 73 and 162 of the Constitution, the administrative power of the District Council would not extend to the subjects enumerated in paragraph 3 (1). Now para 2 (4) provides that the administration of an autonomous district shall vest in the District Council and this in our opinion is comprehensive enough to include all such executive powers as are necessary to be exercised for the purposes of the administration of the district. It is true that where executive power impinges upon the rights of citizens it will have to be backed by an appropriate law; but where executive power is concerned only with the personnel of the administration it is not necessary-even though it may be desirable-that there must be laws, rules or regulations governing the appointment of those who would carry on the administration under the control of the District Council. ....."
(underlining supplied) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ewanlanki E. Rymbai case (Supra) has also explained the spirit of the provisions contained in Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India; and their wide scope as also limitations in the following:-
"23. Having considered the spread of Sixth Schedule and decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Edwingson Bareh (Supra) and in the case of T. Cajee -Vs- U Jormanik Syiem (Supra) we feel that there cannot be any manner of doubt that the Sixth Schedule is a Constitution within the Constitution and is a self contained code for administrative as well as legislative governance of the tribal areas, but we cannot go to the extent of saying that any laws/regulations/rules/notifications made or actions taken under the Sixth Schedule by the District Council or the Executive Committee formed by the District Council can overlook the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution. Clause-3 (1)(g) of the Sixth Schedule authorizes the District Councils and Regional Councils to make laws for appointment or succession of Chiefs and Headmen. Thus, under this power, laws can be made by the District Council for appointment of Dolloi of Elaka Jowai and this power can also be exercised by the District Council by exercising the executive powers, in absence of any law made therefor. But it cannot be said that any law so made or the executive action taken by the District Council would not be and should not be within the parameters of Part-III of the Constitution of India. The position of the District Council is like that of a State with authority to make laws, to do administration of justice in autonomous districts and autonomous regions; to establish primary schools; to assess and collect land revenue and to impose taxes as permissible under Clause 8; to give licenses or leases for the purpose of prospecting for, or extraction of, minerals as per the agreement arrived at between the District Council and the Government of the State. The District Council has powers to regulate and control money- lending trade by non-tribals and can make laws under Clause-3 of the 14 Sixth Schedule but those powers which are to be exercised by the District Council or the Regional Council would be the powers like the State. Any law/regulation/rule or action taken by any other State in the domicile of India should be in consonance with the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of India and on the same analogy, District Council being like a State has to act within the parameters of Part-III of the Constitution. We find support in our view in the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the matter of Hari Chand Sarda -Vs- Mizo District Council and another, reported in AIR 1967 SC 829. In that case the appellant who was a non-tribal started trading at Mizo District under a temporary license, issued on depositing the requisite fees. The temporary license was extended by renewal of the same from time to time upto May 31, 1960. The appellant applied for a further renewal whereupon the Executive Committee of the District refused to renew the same and directed the appellant to remove his properties from the District. The appellant challenged the action of the Executive Committee and contended that the reasons given for non- renewal of the license was mala fide and that Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (Trading by non-tribals) Regulation, 2 of 1953 were invalid being violative of Article 19(1)(e) and (g) of the Constitution. While dealing with the provision of Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (Trading by non-Tribals) Regulation, 2 of 1953 it is said by the Apex Court that the appellant being a citizen of India and the Mizo District being part of the Union Territory, he has undoubtedly a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on the trade in any part of the country including the Mizo District. Any restrictions infringing such a right can only be sustained if it is a reasonable restriction imposed in the interest of the general public as envisaged by Art.19(6). The provisions of Section 3 of the Regulation has been declared to be a unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and, therefore, declared void."
(underlining supplied) Even on the principles of the referred decisions, it is clear that when any Executive power is sought to be exercised by the District Council like the KHADC, it has to act within the parameters of the principles forming the basic structure of the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights in Part-III of the Constitution. It is also a matter of little debate that the freedom of trade and business remains one of the basic rights to freedom and any curtailment thereupon has to be backed by law. Yet further, the prospecting and mining operation and the matters related thereto are to be governed by the law applicable for the purpose including the Mines and Minerals (Development and 15 Regulations) Act, 1957; and it is difficult to find a direct right with the Council to grant any license or lease or to prohibit the movement of excavated minerals. Moreover, it remains trite that any exaction of money in terms of tax or fees could only be under the specific authority of law.
Viewed from any angle, it is apparent that any attempt on the part of the KHADC to recover fees from the vehicles carrying minerals and to subject them to any checking or verification is neither authorized by law nor is in conformity with the rights of citizen guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
It may be observed that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Ewanlanki E. Rymbai case (Supra), even while indicating the circumference of the power of the District Council, has made an observation as if the District Council has the right to give licenses or leases for the purpose for dealing in minerals but such an observation, essentially of obiter dicta, is not of laying down a law contrary to the plain provisions of paragraph 9 of the Sixth Schedule whereby, it is clear that the District Council has only the right of share of royalties, in terms of its agreement, occurring from the licenses or leases granted by the State Government in respect of the area of its jurisdiction. It has not been the case of the petitioner or of the KHADC that the KHADC could at all grant any license or lease for the purpose of prospecting for, or extracting of, minerals. Its right of share on royalties remains indisputable; and similarly, its right to raise dispute as to the share of royalties is also distinctly seen in Sub-Clause (2) of paragraph 9 of the Sixth Schedule, where the matter is to be referred to the Governor and 16 the amount determined by the Governor is taken to be the amount payable to the District Council. However, within the compass of the limited right of share of royalties and raising of dispute if arising, the District Council has not been acceded a right in any of the provisions to setup a parallel check post and then, to charge fees in the name of checking of vehicles. Hence, the appointment of the petitioner under the Order dated 15.01.2016 and Public Notice dated 15.01.2016, as issued by the KHADC could only be disapproved.
So far the suggestion about leakage of royalties and want of appropriate steps by the State is concerned, suffice it to say that in case of infringement of any of its legal rights qua the share of royalties, the KHADC could take recourse to appropriate proceeding as permissible by law. The only question in the present case is as to whether the KHADC could appoint an Agent to setup a parallel check post over the minerals carrying vehicles and charge verification fees from the vehicles. The answer, in the opinion of the Court, is clearly in the negative.
For what has been discussed hereinabove, the Court is satisfied that the petitioner has failed to make out a case of infringement of legally enforceable right. Hence, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE Lam